TITTO S V. UNION OF INDIA

OP (CAT)/275/2017

AI Insights

The case revolves around the petitioner's grievance regarding the loss of seniority following an Inter-Commissionerate transfer from Bangalore to Cochin in 2011. The petitioner, Titto S., a Senior Tax Assistant, argued that despite being higher in the selection process, he was posted in Bangalore and not in Cochin, where he claimed juniors were accommodated. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application due to a significant delay in filing, which the Tribunal found unjustifiable. The High Court, upon reviewing the case, agreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of timely legal action and the lack of merit in the petitioner's claims of oversight regarding his posting.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 739163 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Rabindranath Bose & Others v. Union of India & Others AIR 1970 SC 470
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N NAGRESH
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAJ; C T SUJA
• Keywords: Delay condonation; Inter-Commissionerate Transfer; Seniority; OBC category; Tax assistant

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/11TH ASWINA, 1939 OP (CAT).No. 275 of 2017 (Z) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 113/2014 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 26-07-2016 PETITIONER/APPLICANT:-: ------------------------- TITTO S., SENIOR TAX ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOLLAM RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM - 691 001. BY ADVS.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ SMT.C.T.SUJA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ---------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAX, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, 1ST FLOOR, 'E' WING, KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 034. 5. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE III, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027. 6. DEEPA M., PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, O/O THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 7. RATHEESH O.B., PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ARATTUKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 8. BOSE ANAND, PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM - 695 003. 9. RAJANI T.KRISHNAN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE RANGE, C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 10. DILNA E.V., PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, AYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, OPP. HEAD POST OFFICE, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 275 of 2017 (Z) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO:113 OF 2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION TO THE OA FILED BY THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE REPLY STATEMENT TO THE OA FILED BY THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 6 TO 10. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.07.2016 IN OA.113/2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- nil KS. True copy P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V.,JJ. ============================== O.P.(CAT)No. 275 of 2017 ============================== Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2017 JUDGMENT P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner, who was the applicant in O.A.No.113/2014 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench before this Court challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P6 order passed more than one year ago. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The grievance is mainly with regard to the loss of seniority pursuant to the Inter-Commissionerate transfer given to the petitioner in the year 2011. According to him, by virtue of the higher placement in the process of selection, he ought to have been given appointment to the post of Tax Opcat 275/2017 2 Assistant in the Cochin Commissionerate itself, whereas he was accommodated only at Bangalore, detrimentally to his rights and interest, by accommodating juniors in Cochin. 3. There is no much dispute with regard to the facts as to the process of selection and the postings given, particularly with reference to the dates and other relevant aspects. On coming out successful in the process of selection to the post of Tax Assistant, the petitioner, who belongs to 'OBC' category was given appointment as per Annexure A1 dated 19.12.2007, in the Bangalore Commissionerate. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the petitioner joined duty and was continuing in Bangalore. There was no grievance in any manner for quite long. 4. Four years after joining the post in Bangalore, the petitioner made an application for Inter Commissionerate transfer to come over to Cochin. It was considered and transfer was given to him; pursuant to which the petitioner was relieved from the Bangalore Commissionerate and Opcat 275/2017 3 joined duty in the Cochin Commissionerate with bottom seniority, in accordance with the relevant Rules. It was thereafter, that the petitioner chose to file Annexure A2 dated 10.08.2012 before the competent authority projecting his grievance that, his seniority was liable to be restored; more so, since many of the juniors who belong to 'OBC' category were given posting in Cochin Commissionerate. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of the availability of vacancies in Cochin. The said grievance was caused to be projected by filing the O.A. in the year 2014 with the following prayers: a) To call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A-1 appointment order appointing the applicant at Bangalore under the General Category and to quash the same to the extend of appointing the applicant under the General Category at Bangalore. b) To declare that the applicant shall be deemed to have been given appointment and joined service as Tax Assistant in the Cochin region of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin under the OBC category prior to the appointment of other OBC candidates, in service, who are lower in the rank list Opcat 275/2017 4 issued by the selection committee. c) To declare and issue directions to the respondents that the applicant shall be given posting as Senior Tax Assistant in the Cochin Region under the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin with effect from the date on which other OBC candidates i.e. Deepa M was made Senior Tax Assistant. d)To declare and issue directions to the respondents that the applicant shall be placed in the Annexure A-7 seniority list of the Senior Tax Assistant just above Sl.No.143-Deepa M. e) To issue directions to the respondents to give the applicant all the service benefits in terms of seniority, promotion and monetary benefits treating the applicant as posted in Cochin region prior to the appointment of other OBC candidates who are lower in ranklist. f) To grant such other relief as may be prayed for and the court may deem fit to grant, and g) To grant the cost of this Original Application.” 5. The claim was resisted by the Department. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal made some observations with regard to the plight/fate of the petitioner/applicant. However, taking note of the fact that the O.A. was filed before the Tribunal with a petition to Opcat 275/2017 5 condone the delay of 2135 days in filing the same, it was held that there was absolutely no tenable ground to condone the said delay. Interference was declined and the O.A. was dismissed as per Ext.P6 oder dated 26.07.2016, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. 6. In so far as there is no dispute to the sequence of events, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P1 posting given to him in Bangalore Commissionerate, it was for the petitioner to have it challenged then and there, which admittedly has not been done. The petitioner contends that he came to know of the posting given to the juniors belonging to OBC Sector in the Cochin Commissionerate only much later (on getting information under the Right to Information Act) which does not persuade this Court to render any finding in favour of the petitioner at this distance of time. After serving nearly four years in Bangalore, the petitioner sought for Inter Commissionerate transfer, which was considered and given in 2011. It was thereafter, that Opcat 275/2017 6 the petitioner filed Annexure A2 representation dated 10.8.2012. The respondents contend that the factual position was published in the official gazette, but according to the petitioner, no proof was produced. Even if availability of the vacancy in Cochin was not published (with regard to which we are not expressing any opinion) the petitioner should have been more vigilant, had there any grievance for him in this regard. The cause of action had become stale by virtue of the conduct displayed by the petitioner. The course pursued by the Tribunal declining to condone the delay of 2135 days in filing the O.A., is not liable to be termed as arbitrary or illegal in any manner. 7. That apart, Ext.P6 order which is sought to be challenged by filing Original Petition before this Court was passed by the Tribunal on 26.07.2016. More than one year is over. The only explanation offered is that the file was misplaced. We are not at all impressed with the said submission. No tenable ground is raised for causing a stale Opcat 275/2017 7 cause of action to be considered. It is settled law that jurisdiction vested in this Court is not to extend relief to such persons, who were simply sleeping on arm chair, unmindful of their rights and liberties, if any. We find support from the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Rabindranath Bose & Others v. Union of India & Others AIR 1970 SC 470. There is no merit to interfere with the verdict passed by the Tribunal. The Original Petition is dismissed accordingly . Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE Sd/- SHIRCY V. ks JUDGE True copy P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge "